Read this story from the Edmonton Journal detailing the whining of Enbridge CEO Patrick Daniel about environmental groups seizing control of the pipeline debate. (Aug. 13, 2012)
EDMONTON – Environmental groups opposed to the Northern Gateway pipeline have seized control of the public debate, Enbridge Inc. CEO Patrick Daniel told a radio audience Monday.
“Everything that we say sounds defensive and self-interested, and on the other side, everything they say … is really taken as gospel — and it isn’t,” Daniel said on the Rutherford Show.
“I think we’re facing a very strong, almost revolutionary movement to try to get off oil worldwide, and it creates a lot of passion and drive in those revolutionaries that are trying to change the environment in which we work.
“They know that going after the end user, going after you and I when we drive our cars, … won’t work. So they’re coming after what they consider to be the weak link in the whole process, and that’s the infrastructure part of it.”
Calgary-based Enbridge wants to build the pipeline to the B.C. coast to export Alberta’s oilsands products to booming Asian countries.
The company is mounting its own public relations offensive, taking out newspaper advertisements and pressing its leaders into the public spotlight, highlighting the company’s long safety record and decades of “dependable service” to Canadians.
The tide seems to be turning against the Enbridge Pipeline but we must take great care not to lose by winning.
Industry seems to be talking alternative routes by using rail or other methods.
My old friend Tex Enemark weighs in this morning in an op-ed in the Sun(August 15) and makes several points – we can soak the companies by levying high taxes for rights of way, we can make the pipelines safer (you will note he doesn’t say “safe”), we can use other routes, and that if we don’t permit the pipelines China will retaliate by reducing imports of our other goods.
WHAT NONE OF THESE VOICES SEEMS TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT BECAUSE THERE WILL BE SPILLS,THE DAMAGE, EVEN OF SMALL SPILLS, OF BITUMEN IS SO TOXIC THAT IT CAN NEVER BE REPAIRED AND THAT THE GUNK MUST GO TO MARKET VIA SOME OTHER METHOD.
Let me deal with the last point first – are we to announce to all trading partners, including the USA, that if you threaten our exports, you can come here and do as you please?
This is not a rhetorical question because a new government in 2013 will surely look at Private Power projects, many American owned, which could be canceled, altered or refused in the first place. Do we back off our sovereignty and say, “sorry for even thinking of this, Uncle Sam, please bring your money here and do with us that which you wish”?
Taxing the pipelines misses the point – this isn’t about money but our environment and while I know that old pols seem to believe that money solves all disputes, when it involves our sacred wilderness and our fish, money is off the table.
Making the pipelines safer is, with respect, a non starter. “Safer” does not mean “safe” and the latter is what we insist upon.
Let me pause for a moment and deal with the allegation that we environmentalists are simply bloody minded and are against all projects. The answer to that, from my perspective at any rate, is fourfold:
We question all projects that impact our environment – if we didn’t, corporations would do as they pleased and that’s bad enough as it is.
We insist upon any project that impacts our environment to leave little or no permanent damage. This can be and indeed is done all over the province.
We expect the Precautionary Principle to be always in place, meaning that the onus of proving the environmental viability of any project rests with the proponent.
We regard the safety and protection of our environment as protecting a sacred trust to be passed on.
The issue is unsolvable. It can’t be compromised or mitigated or compensated – not all problems can be solved by compromise, this and lost virginity being examples.
We run a very grave risk here – because once we get rid of the Enbridge line, we will be expected to go away.
We seem to be ignoring the Kinder Morgan line already pumping bitumen across British Columbia and plans to do more are coming. It will be said that because the absence of the Enbridge line removes the tanker issue in Douglas Channel, we can go away.
This simply is not so. Railways simply move the problem. The suggestion by Mr. Enemark that the port of Prince Rupert be used overlooks the fact that that pipeline would be alongside the Skeena River, one of the last great salmon rivers in the world. Always bearing in mind that pipeline leaks are inevitable, do we want to see the same happen to the Skeena that happened to the Kalamazoo?
We are, then, a hell of a long way from success and, in fact, must re-double our efforts.
A response from Tex Enemark:
Well, Rafe, there is a difference between “fair inferences” and quotes. You say flat out I said “safer” which I did not, and then reinforce your point by saying I did not say “safe” when in fact I said neither. I said “politically acceptable”. I think there is a very clear and quantifiable difference between the two. I made no mention of safe pipelines. Nor, as you say in your response, did I say anything about “better testing pipelines”.
One puts me in the position of being some kind of proponent or apologist for pipelines, which I am not. I am simply bringing out issues that have not yet surfaced.
The same with the allegation that I favour a pipeline to Prince Rupert. There are vast differences between the loss/possible breakage of a few rail cars that hold bitumen which will literally go nowhere when they hit cold water, and a pipeline in which the tar has been diluted.
Nonetheless, the damage to my reputation has been done among the readers of your blog.
I think a simple correction is in order, frankly–and fairly.
The following statement was made by Miranda Holmes today at the National Energy Board’s Joint Review Panel hearings into the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline in Comox, BC.
——————————————————————————————
Many voices have been heard during these hearings, yet one has remained silent: the oily character at the centre of the debate. I think that’s a shame and so I am using my time before the panel to allow this character’s case to be made.
Hi, my name’s Dil Bit. That’s short for Diluted Bitumen, but I feel like I’m amongst friends here, so let’s not be too formal.
I come from the tar sands and, as you know, Alberta totally digs me. Alberta’s so generous she wants to share me with everyone.
If she gets her way, I’ll be passing through British Columbia a lot in the future, so I thought I should introduce myself properly.
As fossil fuels go, I’m a bit unconventional. But, as Alberta’s favourite son Steve will tell you, I’m totally ethical. (And don’t let those jet setting celebrities tell you any different.)
I’m also way better than conventional crude oil.
For instance, my total acid concentrations are up to 20 times higher than conventional crude. My sulphur content is up to 10 times higher and I’m up to 70 times thicker. Pretty impressive, eh?
Yeah, it’s true I can be a bit abrasive. Bits of quartz, pyrite, silicates, sure I carry them around. It’s just the way I’m made.
So conventional crude doesn’t have my grit. So what? No need to point out, like those granola eaters at the Natural Resources Defense Council did, that putting me in a pipeline is “like sandblasting the inside of the pipe.”
I don’t know why the Americans have taken against me, because – like so many of them – I pack some serious heat. Thanks to my true grit and my thickness (I like to think of it as strength), I make pipes hotter than conventional crude – and harder to monitor. In fact, pipelines carrying me are16 times more likely to leak.
See? I told you I was better.
I’m Alberta’s most precious resource. You think she and Steve are going to let just anyone transport me? No way.
For my travels through British Columbia, they’re going to use Enbridge, a fine, upstanding company with an excellent track record. Why, it took Enbridge 10 years to spill half as much oil as the Exxon Valdez. And they didn’t just spill it in one spot – they spread it around.
Regulators in the US thought the three million litres of me Enbridge spilled in Michigan was so funny they compared the company to those great comedy characters the Keystone Kops.
If Enbridge maintains its current success rate it should be able to meet Steve’s federal standards, which allow undetected pipeline leaks of less than 2% of capacity per week.
For the Northern Gateway project that means Enbridge could legally leave 11 million litres of me a week behind on my way to Kitimat without getting into any serious trouble. And why should they? Eleven million litres of me would be more than three times funnier than Michigan, right?
That’s good news for me, because I’ve heard there are some mighty pretty places in northern BC and I think it would be a shame not to get to know them better.
And it’s good news for BC, because your premier’s promising lots of jobs out of oil and gas exports, and cleaning up after me will sure keep people employed.
Sorry if any of the spots I’m going to wreck is one of your favourites, but I’ve got to keep Alberta happy. You know what she’s like.
Listen to this half-hour interview of Damien Gillis on Opposition Radio, an Ontario-based online radio program. Hosts Mike and Tony discuss with Damien the recent revelation that the Harper Goverment has been working with the oil lobby on a coordinated PR strategy to promote the Alberta Tar Sands. The three also delve into recent pipeline politics in BC and the “jobs” myth around the proposed Enbridge pipeline, discussing a recent story by Damien on the drive to import American and Chinese labour to build the pipeline and expand Tar Sands operations, and how that flies in the face of the Harper Government’s contention these developments are good for the Canadian economy. (30 min – recorded July 31, 2012)
Read this story from Watershed Sentinel on oil spill expert Dr. Ricki Ott’s recent speech in Courtenay, BC, on Enbridge, the impact of oil spills on people and the environment, and how British Columbians can rise up to defend their province from these calamities. (August 2012)
On a hot Friday evening in August, a packed audience at the Native Sons Hall in Courtenay BC listened spell bound and sometimes close to tears to marine toxicologist Dr. Riki Ott. In an event sponsored by World Community, Ott was describing the long term impacts to fish, mammals, and humans from the Exxon Valdez, Deepwater Gulf, and Kalamazoo River oil spills.
Ott, who was a commercial fisher in Cordova Alaska as well as a trained scientist, was in a unique position when Prince William Sound was hit by the Exxon Valdez oil spill 23 years ago. She described how the response to the spill was nothing like what had been promised by the oil companies before the port was opened.
She talked about how any spill response actually collects, at the most, 15% of the spilled oil, which continues to cycle through the ecosystem with every tide. “They said it was cleaned up,” she said, “but two years later the pink salmon run failed, and four years later the herring disappeared. The herring fishery is now closed indefinitely.” Herring eggs fail when exposed to oil at one part per trillion.
The most poignant – and pungent – witness to the impossibility of “clean up” were two small jars Ott circulated through the hall. They were filled with sand and beach stones from a beach that had been considered “cleaned up” for two decades. The jars stank of oil, and the woman next to me, who touched the stones, scrambled for a tissue to clean her fingers.”We can respond to an oil spill,” declared Dr. Ott, “We can never clean it up.”
Worst of all, Ott said, was the impact on the community, which was in chaos, as debt and despair ate at family and social life. The small fishing community of Cordova had to pull together and revision its values. It has managed to resuscitate itself, with the help of local economic development such as niche marketing of a salmon run from the Copper River, which was not impacted by the spill…
…In all this, insisted Ott, over and over again, whether 23 years ago or two, the communities find themselves alone, with ruined environments, ruined industries, and lingering but unrecognised personal health impacts. Citizens, she said, are the victims of ‘lies and betrayal,” being sacrificed for the economy. Her response, especially to the issue of the proposed dilbit pipelines facing BC, is that crisis provides the opportunity to reorganize, decide what wealth means in your community, and develop democratically-driven local economies, such as those championed by the Transition Town movement. “Protect your local wealth with local laws,” and work for real democracy. “We can believe in it. We can work for it. It’s not a goal, it’s a journey.”
Riki Ott told the Watershed Sentinel that the recent upsurge in organizing activity through the Occupy movement is a massive opportunity for movement building, with three and four generations of people coming together for social change. When asked, she suggested that the role of the experienced grassroots of the environmental movement now is to help these “new recruits”: “Empower these folks,” sharing skills and historical knowledge.
It’s time Canadians and in particular British Columbians prepare for a crude awakening.
In a recent poll exclusive to the Globe and Mail, Canada’s most prominent and respected newspaper of record, these stunning results were reported in their online edition:
The online survey of 804 adults found the recent pipeline discussion had no immediate effect on the political landscape. Of those polled, 25 per cent said the economy was the most critical issue, while 19 per cent said health care. Twelve per cent chose leadership.
Energy – which scored 1 per cent in an Angus Reid poll in early July – remained at that figure, tied with aboriginal affairs and daycare. “Other” scored 4 per cent. (emphasis added)
At 4%, “Other” issues inconceivably scored 400% higher than Energy issues in terms of priorities for British Columbians.
This is not just some freak accident either, as the same result has been registered in two separate polls this summer. Energy issues registered at 1% before Christy’s EPIC roll-out as newly minted champion of British Columbia, with her pathetic and duplicitous BC First campaign, and then once again precisely at 1% immediately thereafter. (Note that the title of Christy’s Putting BC First campaign “coincidentally” lifts the name of the BC First independent MLA initiative)
While it is no surprise that Christy’s hollow mid-summer stunt has reaped little political benefit for her doomed government, it is incomprehensible that energy issues do not register on the radar screen of British Columbian voters, when in fact they are at the very epicenter of contemporary politics in Canada. It is quite possible people in British Columbia are under the misconception that Alberta is the entire Oil and Gas story, but they would be sorely mistaken, as BC is a huge player and no other jurisdiction besides Alberta has more skin in the game.
The traditional concerns with the economy and healthcare register as top priorities, but it would seem there is a deep disconnect prevalent in these numbers which suggest British Columbians do not fully comprehend the importance of energy issues and there impact on things like the economy and healthcare. In fact, all of the issues registered as concerns in this poll, including leadership, aboriginal affairs and even daycare, are almost entirely dependent on how we manage the energy portfolio in this country and it is time we give our collective head a shake and get with the program.
These polls illustrate that average Canadians do not fully appreciate what is involved and what is at stake. It is barely ever reported in this manner, but Oil and Gas is a multi-trillion dollar resource – the Tar Sands alone is unparalleled anywhere else in the world. It is what is responsible for propelling Harper into power and it dominates the entire political and policy agenda of his government, not simply on the domestic front, but also in terms of foreign policy, as the Oil and Gas agenda has reshaped our role in the international community just as drastically as it has altered the very fabric of the country. It has budget ramifications that dwarf any other single contributing factor, is the single most heavily subsidized undertaking in the country, and it reaches into the pockets of each and everyone on of us and those of our children.
At no other time have our politicians been so utterly irresponsible in terms of their most fundamental purpose. Representing the citizens of this great country while protecting and forwarding what is in our best interest is the most basic function of a politician in a representative democracy such as ours and the current crop has failed in EPIC proportions. That a mere 1% of British Columbians believe “energy” is a priority reflects the fact that we have been given the old mushroom treatment – left in the dark and fed a lot of a manure – for if our politicians had properly communicated the importance of what we face at this time and with these issues it would undoubtedly be on top of everyone’s agenda. This is one instance where we cannot simply point the finger at the media – we must take a long hard look at our entire system in light of such an EPIC fail in terms of having the tools required to properly manage ourselves as citizens, our province and the most pivotal agenda we have ever experienced as a country.
When I sat down to carry out the research for a detailed piece about Canada’s EPIC “National Energy Strategy” – my fifth installment for the Common Sense Canadian on Energy Issues in British Columbia – I came across this stunning Globe and Mail story with their most recent poll. I will carry on with my original intention of detailing the all-encompassing, far reaching, essential aspects of the energy strategy and its implications for us all, however that will now have to wait for my sixth installment.
For now I will leave you with this brief synopsis of just a few of the main points underscoring the depth and breadth of these vital energy issues currently reshaping our country and province:
Canada’s largest Tar Sands operator Suncor amongst other Canadian energy interests – most notably SNC Lavalin – were the major benefactors in the Libyan “humanitarian mission.” Canadian taxpayers, on the other hand, were handed the near-million dollar bill for the celebration upon the return of our service people.
This barely scratches the surface of what has been a never-ending barrage of energy related issues that have dominated the agenda and altered the very fabric of this nation, all the while massively escalating oil and gas production with an equally massive escalation in public debt, as Harper filed the largest deficit in history the same year Tar Sands production hit its peak.
It is very possible you may have missed it, what with the it being mid-summer and with the grand spectacle of the Olympics – not to mention Clark’s BC First campaign – but our Finance minister Kevin Falcon released a quiet little update stating that, whoops, he was wrong and in fact The B.C. Government posted a deficit of $1.84 billion last year, higher than the $925 million originally communicated, doubling the most recent deficit numbers this government filed, which has contributed to the stunning $24 Billion in total debt the Liberals project they will have shoveled onto our backs during their time in office by by this budget’s end. This comes on top of an additional $50-plus Billionof other hidden liabilities, slammed by BC’s Auditor General.
This despite record-breaking activity in the natural gas sector and coming on the heels of the 200 million dollar “dent” in the budgetFalcon reported a mere three weeks earlier as a result of a dip in natural gas prices, underscoring how vulnerable the Liberal royalty regime leaves us to the whims of the “energy” market.
As you can see, Energy Issues are pivotal to British Columbians and therefore should be pivotal to the success of our politicians. We must not only ensure that British Columbians fully appreciate the importance of the oil and gas agenda, but also understand the importance of the political agenda and its impact on all of us – our future depends on it. I will explore these points in depth along with the National Energy Strategy in my next installment for the Common Sense Canadian.
Read this story from CBC.ca on Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s visit to BC amid his government’s apparent shifting stance on its favoured Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline. Contrary to previous assertions that he would push the pipeline through regardless of the Joint Review Panel’s findings, the PM is now assuring British Columbians that he will listen to science and maintains the panel’s independence. (August 7, 2012)
Prime Minister Stephen Harper is defending the independence of the environmental review process underway for Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline, telling reporters in Vancouver the project will be evaluated scientifically and a green light to proceed would not be based on politics.
“Decisions on these kinds of projects are made through an independent evaluation conducted by scientists into the economic costs and risks that are associated with the project. And that’s how we conduct our business,” Harper said.
“The only way that governments can handle controversial projects of this manner is to ensure that things are evaluated on an independent basis scientifically and not simply on political criteria,” the prime minister added.
On Friday, the federal government announced a firm deadline to ensure the joint review panel charged with evaluating the pipeline completes its work by the end of 2013, without further delays. But Harper’s cabinet will have the final say on the project.
“The government does not pick and choose particular projects,” Harper said, “the projects have to be evaluated on their own merits.”
Enbridge’s proposed pipeline, to move bitumen from Alberta’s oilsands across B.C. to a new marine terminal in Kitimat, B.C., for export to Asia, has been identified by the Harper government as beneficial to its international trade strategy.
The prime minister reiterated his government’s position that trade with the Asia-Pacific region is of “vital interest” to Canada and British Columbia, as the country’s Asia-Pacific Gateway.
Harper also reminded reporters of investments in last spring’s budget to bolster federal government inspection and monitoring for resource development projects such as this one.
Journalists in B.C. were keen to get questions to the prime minister after sharp criticism of Enbridge from the prime minister’s senior cabinet minister for B.C., James Moore, last week. Harper did not contradict Moore directly, but appeared to offer a somewhat softened version of the government’s previous position on the pipeline.
Reporters were kept well back from Harper and Moore on Monday when they attended Conservative Senator Gerry St. Germain’s annual summer barbecue.
Public Opinion Set Against Pipeline
Harper’s stops on the West Coast this week come at a challenging time for supporters of the pipeline.
Enbridge’s efforts to garner approval for the project have been set back by recent oil spills along other Enbridge pipelines, including damaging revelations about the way Enbridge handled its 2010 spill in Michigan.
Last spring’s budget implementation bill streamlined the regulatory approval process for major natural resources development projects like Gateway. A firm deadline has now been set to ensure the joint review panel charged with evaluating the pipeline completes its work by the end of 2013, without further delays.
Cabinet will have the final say on the project. A statement from Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver’s office Friday continued to emphasize its potential to create jobs and economic growth.
But last Wednesday, Harper’s senior minister in B.C. James Moore told a private radio program in Vancouver that Enbridge had put a “sour taste in the mouth” with its past actions and wasn’t doing enough to win the confidence of British Columbians generally, and its First Nations specifically.
Moore said doubts about the Enbridge pipeline were “widespread” and repeatedly denied the Harper government would simply ram through approval for the pipeline, despite recent changes to streamline the approval process.
It was not immediately clear from Moore’s remarks whether he was speaking only for himself as a senior minister representing the province’s concerns, or whether his dressing down of Enbridge was an early signal of a still-evolving position from the federal government.
Read this story from Yahoo News on the ramifications for Canada and the Alberta Tar Sands of the Obama Administration’s obstruction of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta to Texas. (July 25)
China is in the process of acquiring a stake in Canada’s valuable Alberta oil sands, months after Obama suspended a plan to invest in the region.
Has China swooped in to claim a prize the U.S. forfeited? This week, China’s state-run energy giant CNOOC announced that it was buying Canadian oil producer Nexen for $15 billion, the largest-ever acquisition by a Chinese company. The deal would give China control over Nexen’s oil sands operations in the Canadian province of Alberta (among other Nexen oil properties around the world), a huge win for the energy-hungry nation. The purchase still needs to be approved by Canada’s parliament, which has blocked foreign takeovers of domestic businesses in the past. However, analysts say the odds look good, partly because oil-rich Canada has been forced to turn to other investors after President Obama suspended the Keystone Pipeline, a massive project that would have delivered oil from Alberta to the Gulf Coast, over environmental concerns. Did Obama push Canada into China’s arms?
Yes. Canada has to sell its oil to someone: When Obama stalled the Keystone Pipeline, “it spurred Canada to look to China as a new partner,” says Nathan Vardi at Forbes, and now “Canada’s vital oil industry appears to be drifting to China.” Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper responded to Obama’s “snub” by immediately “heading to China to start negotiating energy deals.” If Canada continues “to diversify its economic dependence away from the U.S.,” it could be a “strategic setback for the U.S., which has been searching for years for secure sources of oil that are free from the political uncertainty that exists in Venezuela and the Middle East.”
And Obama’s environmental objections are now moot: “The lesson for America, and especially Democrats, is that Canada’s oil sands will be [further] developed,” despite objections over the environmental impact, says The Wall Street Journal in an editorial. “If the U.S. doesn’t want the oil, China and the rest of Asia will gladly take it.” China is trying to “replace the U.S. as Canada’s biggest energy investor and market,” and Obama is letting it happen over the most meaningless of objections. “China’s Canadian energy play”
Let’s not get carried away. Nexen’s Canadian presence is small: While CNOOC will win a stake in the Alberta oil sands, Nexen’s holdings in Canada are relatively small, say Lee Chyen Yee and Jeffrey Jones at Reuters. Canadian lawmakers are hardly enthusiastic about having their natural resources owned by communist China, but “most of Nexen’s assets lie outside Canada, making it less likely that it would be seen as a national champion falling into Chinese hands.” The deal is unlikely to spark a wave of Chinese acquisitions in the U.S.’s backyard, and the U.S. still enjoys a healthy advantage in its trade relations with Canada.
I recently attended the one-day hearing for the Joint Review Panel into the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline in the small community of Shearwater – the umpteenth meeting of this sort I’ve documented over the past 6 years covering environmental politics in BC. At the end of the meeting, throughout which I recorded the continued disrespect of the public and Heiltsuk First Nations people – in whose traditional territory the meeting took place – by the National Energy Board panel running the show, I was assaulted by panel staff. But we’ll get to that in a moment.
Listen to exclusive audio from the July 27 Enbridge hearing and Damien’s interview with Rae Kornberger of CHLY 101.7 FM in Nanaimo on the Bella Bella and Shearwater hearings:
First, a little background. The July 27 meeting was a make-up for the lost day of hearings in nearby Bella Bella this past April, which I also documented thoroughly in these pages and through the national mainstream media. I was, in fact, essentially the only media in attendance at that hearing. I helped, along with a small team of terrific people from the Heiltsuk Nation, to correct the record when the panel attempted to cancel the whole week of scheduled testimony over bogus insinuations that a peaceful greeting at the airport, largely by schoolchildren, First Nations chiefs and elders in regalia, turned violent.
Representatives of the panel implied the group was an unruly mob that threatened the very safety of the panel. As our footage clearly displayed on everything from CBC’sThe Nationalto Global TV and CTV, the reality was nothing of the sort.
The RCMP, who were supervising the whole thing, later put out a statement affirming it was indeed a “peaceful demonstration and there were no incidents to report.” Yet within a few hours of Sunday’s greeting at the airport, the panel had sent an email to the band’s chief, Marilyn Slett, informing her they were cancelling the week’s hearings.
By Monday afternoon, however, following a barrage of provincial and national media stories which scoffed at the panel’s story, the hearings were back on. No apology, of course, and the story had changed – now it was simply a matter of “logistical difficulties”, a bold-faced lie given the email they sent to the chief, which stated:
The panel cannot be in a situation where it is unsure whether the crowd will be peaceful…Based on our experiences this afternoon, the panel is concerned that a meaningful hearing cannot be achieved.
The Heiltsuk went on to acquit themselves brilliantly at the reinstated hearings, in spite of the atmosphere of disrespect they were forced to operate within in their own territory – producing speech after speech of powerful material for the panel to consider, such as the testimony of young William Housty or this compilation of statements.
That brings us to July 27 – a day of testimony to make up for the lost hearings the last time around. Only, this meeting was held in the largely non-aboriginal community of Shearwater, across the water from Bella Bella, in a hall not nearly big enough to accommodate the community that wished to attend. Nor was it easy for media to reach – only myself, Kai Nagata of The Tyee, and perhaps one print journalist managed to make it.
None of this was surprising, based on my experiences with the panel to date, nor was their lack of contrition for their appalling behaviour in April, or their continued rudeness and adherence to invented, stifling protocols.
At one point, panel member Kenneth Bateman cut off Ingmar Lee of Shearwater, mid-testimony, issuing the following lecture:
This is not an opportunity to provide a personal political statement or to make disparaging remarks of any party. We want this to be respectful of all parties. It also needs to relate directly to the project and not to Canadian affairs at broad…I will stop you if you continue in the vein that you have because it is not consistent with the respectful approach that we have taken and have require from all parties.
Listen to the back-and-forth between presenter Ingmar Lee and panel member Kenneth Bateman:
Just how respectfully does this bunch conduct itself? At meeting’s conclusion, the panelists leapt from their seats and darted out the back door. When I pursued them with my camera to capture their escape, I was immediately physically obstructed by two unidentified panel staff, knocking the microphone off my camera in the process. I was told by a woman who refused to identify herself to me but whom I was later informed provided “secretarial services to the panel” that I had “crossed the line” – evidently an invisible one somewhere near the front of the room, of which I was never informed.
We can argue about who crossed what line.
I chose not to take any action, even though the incident occurred in full view of the audience and a local citizen journalist with another camera and despite the platoon of police officers stationed outside the venue – I have more important things to focus my energies on. I did, however, take the opportunity to speak to the panel’s facilitator, Ruth Mills, telling her that in all my years of documenting these sorts of processes, this panel has conducted itself with less class than any I’ve witnessed.
Yet in spite of the obvious futility of the process, I’ve had the great privilege to witness and document moving testimony from British Columbians and First Nations, which has given me a whole new appreciation for this land and its people – and a much deeper understanding of the history of our province and nation. And for that, it has proven an immensely rewarding experience.
I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that I’ve documented more environmental assessment meetings, judicial inquiries, and “public” open houses relating to industrial projects throughout this province over the past five or six years than anyone – so these Enbridge hearings call to mind a number of similarly negative experiences. I will relate just a select few below.
To borrow a line from my colleague Rafe Mair, “I’d rather have a root canal without anaesthetic than attend another one of these things.” But I believe someone needs to do it.
The Cohen Inquiry into Disappearing Fraser Sockeye
At the Cohen Commission last year, I, along with all other media, was forbidden from bringing a camera into the proceedings. On some days, there was one camera permitted to a gentleman working on a documentary – that being connected to a video feed in a separate media room. I was initially granted access to this room by the the Inquiry’s media liaison, Carla Shore, but told I couldn’t patch into the video feed because the 30-year old beta deck had been rented by the CBC and I did not have their permission to use it. I gladly offered to: A. pay for my use of the machine; B. provide my own machine; C. contact the CBC and obtain permission from them to use their equipment. None of these was acceptable to her.
Fed up with this runaround, I plugged a video recorder into the deck, thus unleashing the fury of Ms. Shore. Little did she know, the recorder for the livestream audio feed, due to technical issues, had been placed directly in front of a small speaker inside the media room which was playing the audio from the hearings. That meant the microphone would pick up any noise in the room and stream it live on the Commission’s website, along with the testimony inside.
I was later told by a number of people who were listening to the livestream that they figured a riot had broken out right in the midst of the Cohen Inquiry.
Listen to Damien’s run-in with media liaison Carla Shore at the Cohen Commission last September:
Having later discovered the whole thing had been inadvertently captured, Ms. Shore sheepishly apologized to me for the incident and revoked the ban she had since instated on my use of the media room.
In the end, it emerged through our conversations that the reason she was so obstructive towards me was that she’d read my editorial earlier that morning and deemed me to be too opinionated, thus disqualifying me as a journalist.
I reminded her that my publication had produced a significant amount of well-read coverage on the Cohen Inquiry, that my colleague Rafe Mair was in the Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ Hall of Fame and had won every major journalistic award in the country, and that together we had likely done more to document the salmon farming industry and salmon issues in general than any media team in BC over the past decade…and yet, somehow, this one woman’s arbitrary opinion as to the worthiness of my credentials impeded my ability to report on a “public” Judicial Inquiry of enormous import.
Private River Power Environmental Assessment Hearings
Rafe and I have had far too many run-ins with the “run of river” assessment people over the years to mention. Suffice it to say, the entire process has been an affront to the public interest. Not one meeting is designed to hear whether citizens want these projects, and when a speaker goes there, they are promptly ruled out of order. The companies clearly control the process, choosing the most out-of-the-way, inconvenient locations and times for the meetings.
On several occasions, this blew up in their face – such as the famous Pitt River meeting where so many people crammed into a tiny room the proponent had booked that the fire marshal had to be called and the meeting rescheduled to a much larger venue. This was again packed – this time with 1,400 people – and the day after, the project was essentially killed.
The same thing happened in the tiny town of Kaslo (pop. 1,000), where 1,100 people turned out to oppose the Glacier-Howser projects in the Kootenays. They had to take over the meeting from the proponent – who was intent on wasting everyone’s time with a half-hour, glossy powerpoint – and one-by-one they delivered the message that this thing was not going to happen.
But my most heated private power run-ins involved GE’s proposed Bute Inlet mega-project, particularly with the head of the Canadian Environmental Assessment team there, Ms. Kathy Eichenburger. Needless to say, Kathy and I got off to a rocky start when she insisted I not film the first round of proceedings in Powell River. I held my ground after 4 or 5 attempts by different staff to convince me to stow my camera. Rafe got in trouble once or twice too for his less-than-diplomatic language, as I recall.
Then, in Campbell River, Ms. Eichenburger continued to overlook me as a speaker, as I waited to voice my concerns about the project. In a side bar, she told me that since I’d spoken already in Powell River, I wouldn’t be getting a turn tonight. I informed her that Campbell River was my hometown, that I’d traveled a whole day to be there and I was bloody well going to say my piece, even if that meant grabbing the microphone off its stand. To which she threatened she would call the police on me. To which I quoted Clint Eastwood.
Needless to say, I got my turn at the microphone and also fully documented both hearings, produced a short documentary on the project and continued to work with Rafe and many others to see it shelved, where it thankfully remains (though not certainly forevermore).
This is just a small sampling of the many colourful experiences I’ve had with these “public” meetings deciding the fate of our public resources.
Neither Rafe nor I are reporters; and we are only “journalists” if you accept Mike Smyth or Vaughn Palmer or Barbara Yaffe or any other editorialist as a journalist. We are in the business of expressing ourselves and the views of others, where it regards the environment and public interest in Canada, and particularly BC. We strive, above all, to get to the bottom of and speak the truth about these largely destructive projects.
In the course of our work around these meetings, we have found ourselves deeply frustrated by the process, for the above reasons. But these events are scarcely a waste of time – on the contrary, they have proven to be a focal point in the battle over our precious resources, even our very democracy. And so Rafe and I go to them – and we will not be told what to report on, how to go about it, nor how to express or not express ourselves at the microphone.
In all my days of witnessing these farcical stage-plays that masquerade as “public” hearings, The Enbridge JRP takes the cake. As I told the panel’s facilitator after my run-in with her team, the harder you try to impede the public will, the ruder you are to the citizens and First Nations of this province, the more you help their cause.
Read this story from CBC.ca on the Harper’s Government’s new deadline for the completion of the ongoing Joint Review Panel into the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline, amid concerns raised about the proponent and the project raised by BC Conservative MP James Moore. (Aug. 3, 2012)
The federal government has set a firm deadline of Dec. 31, 2013, for the review panel deciding the future of the Northern Gateway pipeline, shutting down the possibility of further extensions and putting into place the expedited assessment process pledged in its budget implementation bill.
But the written notice issued by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Friday comes on the heels of comments from the senior Harper government minister in B.C., James Moore, who told a radio program in Vancouver on Wednesday that doubts about the Northern Gateway project are “widespread, given the behaviour of Enbridge recently.”
Moore denied repeatedly that the federal government’s goal is to “ram through the pipeline.” But he did not reply to interview requests Friday seeking clarification as to whether his comments reflected a possible change in direction or message for federal Conservatives.
In an emailed statement provided to CBC News in response to an interview request seeking clarification of the government’s position, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver’s office repeated well-used lines about the federal government’s “critical strategic objective” of “diversification of our energy markets” in order to “create jobs and economic growth.”
“We will continue to work in partnership with the provincial governments to encourage achieving this objective,” the statement said. “In particular to the Northern Gateway project, it is currently before the Joint Review Panel who are reviewing all the environmental considerations to make sure it is safe for the environment and Canadians. We look forward to reviewing their report once it is completed.”
In an interview Friday on CBC News Network’s Power & Politics, Peter Julian, the NDP Natural Resources critic who represents the B.C. riding of Burnaby-New Westminster, said the federal government’s doublespeak just isn’t going to fly with Canadians.
“The Conservatives are playing this dangerous game where in B.C. they’re acknowledging the widespread negative reaction of the Northern Gateway proposal, and at the same time in Ottawa they’re trying to impose and move forward on something that British Columbians will simply not accept,” Julian told guest host Hannah Thibedeau.
Friday’s notice from the federal assessment agency confirmed the changes implemented in the government’s budget bill, which came into force on July 6. The changes to the joint review panel’s mandate set a maximum time limit for the panel’s work, concluding at the end of 2013 without further extensions.
Under the changes, the joint review panel can’t reject the pipeline project for only environmental reasons.
Once the review panel submits its report, the federal government will make the final decision on the pipeline within 180 days (approximately six months), before the end of June 2014.
This barely scratches the surface of what has been a never-ending barrage of energy related issues that have dominated the agenda and altered the very fabric of this nation, all the while massively escalating oil and gas production with an equally 
